3 ms·

Big business is the engine that drives the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses. Economies where big business is discouraged don't do very we

Big business is the engine that drives the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses. Economies where big business is discouraged don't do very well. Small business doesn't have economy of scale, nor can it raise the capital to do big projects. > extreme concentration of wealth Big business does not concentrate wealth. What you're seeing is the creation of wealth. This created wealth then flows out into the rest of the economy, via paying the workers and buying plant&equipment, etc.

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
How big is big? There are big businesses such as Ford and then there are big businesses like Nvidia or Amazon. We should encourage more Fords and fewer Amazons.
AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> Big business does not concentrate wealth. They absolutely do. If for no other reason than each of their revenue goes to fewer entities. > What you're seeing is the creation of wealth. This created wealth then flows out into the rest of the economy, via paying the workers and buying plant&equipment, etc. This is the flawed reasoning behind "trickle-down economics"[0], which was called "horse and sparrow" in the 19th century. It didn't work in the 19th century when labelled as the latter nor in the 20th when reframed as the former. Any company which has earnings beyond those of operating costs is a concentration of wealth by definition. Whether that wealth is distributed to shareholders, kept as retained earnings, or otherwise transferred to specific entities is irrelevant. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > Any company which has earnings beyond those of operating costs is a concentration of wealth by definition Let's say I buy $20 worth of art supplies, and I paint a landscape and sign it with my moniker, "bright". Since "bright" paintings are very rare and go for a million bucks each, I now have created a million bucks of value. Who did I transfer the wealth from? Nobody. I took nuttin from nobody. Yet I have become wealthy. Let's say I sell it to you for a million bucks. Did I take your wealth? Nope. I traded a million dollar painting for a million bucks. You are exactly as wealthy as you were before. Now, if you decide to use my painting as compost (sob!), you are dissipating the million dollar value. That's not me concentrating wealth, it's you destroying your wealth. If you stole the painting from me, then you concentrated wealth. But we're not talking about theft here.
  - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
    >> Any company which has earnings beyond those of operating costs is a concentration of wealth by definition. For context, here is the second sentence related to the above: Whether that wealth is distributed to shareholders, kept as retained earnings, or otherwise transferred to specific entities is irrelevant. I believe this relevant to the below. > Let's say I buy $20 worth of art supplies, and I paint a landscape and sign it with my moniker, "bright". Since "bright" paintings are very rare and go for a million bucks each, I now have created a million bucks of value. Who did I transfer the wealth from? Nobody. I took nuttin from nobody. Yet I have become wealthy. This scenario is not relevant to "big business", but instead describes a sole proprietorship with an assumption of a known fungible value. It also does not account for consumable goods and/or transient services. In any event, by your own definition below: > Let's say I sell it to you for a million bucks. Did I take your wealth? Nope. I traded a million dollar painting for a million bucks. You are exactly as wealthy as you were before. Either you have not "become wealthy", as you "traded a million dollar painting for a million bucks" or the effectual value of money exceeds the purchase value of the "million dollar painting". Both cannot be true. Back to my statement of corporate earnings beyond operational costs being a concentration of wealth. I believe we can agree on the following: - Any for-profit company has as its purpose the goal of accounts receivable (AR) exceeding accounts payable (AP) over time. - There are a limited number of recipients regarding profit distribution for any given company. - Those having no direct or indirect ownership of a given company do not receive profit distributions. If we agree on the above, then the larger the profits, the larger the distributions. Since the set of people qualifying for profit distributions are less than the set of all people having no investment relation to the company, it follows that said profits are enjoyed by fewer entities than those strictly involved in the AR side of the ledger. Hence a concentration of wealth into the organization.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      > Either you have not "become wealthy", as you "traded a million dollar painting for a million bucks" or the effectual value of money exceeds the purchase value of the "million dollar painting". Both cannot be true. I became wealthy by creating wealth, not concentrating it. Concentrating it requires it be taken from somewhere else. There is no taking going on, there is creation and exchange.

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago

How big is big? There are big businesses such as Ford and then there are big businesses like Nvidia or Amazon. We should encourage more Fords and fewer Amazons.

AdieuToLogic 1y ago

> Big business does not concentrate wealth. They absolutely do. If for no other reason than each of their revenue goes to fewer entities. > What you're seeing is the creation of wealth. This created wealth then flows out into the rest of the economy, via paying the workers and buying plant&equipment, etc. This is the flawed reasoning behind "trickle-down economics"[0], which was called "horse and sparrow" in the 19th century. It didn't work in the 19th century when labelled as the latter nor in the 20th when reframed as the former. Any company which has earnings beyond those of operating costs is a concentration of wealth by definition. Whether that wealth is distributed to shareholders, kept as retained earnings, or otherwise transferred to specific entities is irrelevant. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

WalterBright 1y ago
> Any company which has earnings beyond those of operating costs is a concentration of wealth by definition Let's say I buy $20 worth of art supplies, and I paint a landscape and sign it with my moniker, "bright". Since "bright" paintings are very rare and go for a million bucks each, I now have created a million bucks of value. Who did I transfer the wealth from? Nobody. I took nuttin from nobody. Yet I have become wealthy. Let's say I sell it to you for a million bucks. Did I take your wealth? Nope. I traded a million dollar painting for a million bucks. You are exactly as wealthy as you were before. Now, if you decide to use my painting as compost (sob!), you are dissipating the million dollar value. That's not me concentrating wealth, it's you destroying your wealth. If you stole the painting from me, then you concentrated wealth. But we're not talking about theft here.
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  >> Any company which has earnings beyond those of operating costs is a concentration of wealth by definition. For context, here is the second sentence related to the above: Whether that wealth is distributed to shareholders, kept as retained earnings, or otherwise transferred to specific entities is irrelevant. I believe this relevant to the below. > Let's say I buy $20 worth of art supplies, and I paint a landscape and sign it with my moniker, "bright". Since "bright" paintings are very rare and go for a million bucks each, I now have created a million bucks of value. Who did I transfer the wealth from? Nobody. I took nuttin from nobody. Yet I have become wealthy. This scenario is not relevant to "big business", but instead describes a sole proprietorship with an assumption of a known fungible value. It also does not account for consumable goods and/or transient services. In any event, by your own definition below: > Let's say I sell it to you for a million bucks. Did I take your wealth? Nope. I traded a million dollar painting for a million bucks. You are exactly as wealthy as you were before. Either you have not "become wealthy", as you "traded a million dollar painting for a million bucks" or the effectual value of money exceeds the purchase value of the "million dollar painting". Both cannot be true. Back to my statement of corporate earnings beyond operational costs being a concentration of wealth. I believe we can agree on the following: - Any for-profit company has as its purpose the goal of accounts receivable (AR) exceeding accounts payable (AP) over time. - There are a limited number of recipients regarding profit distribution for any given company. - Those having no direct or indirect ownership of a given company do not receive profit distributions. If we agree on the above, then the larger the profits, the larger the distributions. Since the set of people qualifying for profit distributions are less than the set of all people having no investment relation to the company, it follows that said profits are enjoyed by fewer entities than those strictly involved in the AR side of the ledger. Hence a concentration of wealth into the organization.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > Either you have not "become wealthy", as you "traded a million dollar painting for a million bucks" or the effectual value of money exceeds the purchase value of the "million dollar painting". Both cannot be true. I became wealthy by creating wealth, not concentrating it. Concentrating it requires it be taken from somewhere else. There is no taking going on, there is creation and exchange.